COVID-19 Updates

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID. But the government plans to stop footing the bill within months, and millions of people who are at the highest risk of severe illness and are least able to afford the drug – the uninsured and seniors – may have to pay the full price.

And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.

“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.

In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.

But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”

Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.

Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.

Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.

“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.

In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.

Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.

People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.

About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.

States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.

“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.

People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.

Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.

And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.

Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.

HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.

The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.

Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.

“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

The early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic caused an average treatment delay of 3.2 months for 53% of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), results from a retrospective study of nine international centers showed. However, among patients with CTCL diagnosed with COVID-19 during that time, no cases were acquired from outpatient visits.

“Delays in therapy for patients with cutaneous lymphomas should likely be avoided,” two of the study authors, Larisa J. Geskin, MD, of the department of dermatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Bradley D. Kwinta, a medical student at Columbia University, told this news organization in a combined response via email.

“Continuing treatment and maintenance therapy appears critical to avoiding disease progression, highlighting the importance of maintenance therapy in CTCL,” they said. “These patients can be safely treated according to established treatment protocols while practicing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment without significantly increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection.”

The United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer developed emergency guidelines for the management of patients with cutaneous lymphomas during the pandemic to ensure patient safety, and the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas created an International Cutaneous Lymphomas Pandemic Section to collect data to assess the impact of these guidelines.

“Using this data, we can determine if these measures were effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, what the impact was of maintenance therapy, and how delays in treatment affected disease outcomes in CTCL patients,” the authors and their colleagues wrote in the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

They retrospectively analyzed data from the electronic medical records of 149 patients with CTCL who were being managed at one of nine international academic medical centers in seven countries from March to October 2020. Slightly more than half (56%) were male, 70% were White, 18% were Black, 52% had stage IA-IIA disease, and 19% acquired COVID-19 during the study period.

Of the 149 patients, 79 (53%) experienced a mean treatment delay of 3.2 months (range, 10 days to 10 months). After adjusting for age, race, biological sex, COVID-19 status, and disease stage, treatment delay was associated with a significant risk of disease relapse or progression across all stages (odds ratio, 5.00; P < .001). Specifically, for each additional month that a patient experienced treatment delay, the odds of disease progression increased by 37% (OR, 1.37; P < .001).

A total of 28 patients with CTCL (19%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, but none were acquired from outpatient office visits. Patients who contracted COVID-19 did not have a statistically significant increase in odds of disease progression, compared with COVID-negative patients (OR, 0.41; P = .07).

According to Dr. Geskin, who is also director of the Comprehensive Skin Cancer Center in the division of cutaneous oncology in the department of dermatology at Columbia, and Mr. Kwinta, no clinical trials exist to inform maintenance protocols in patients with cutaneous lymphomas. “There are also no randomized and controlled observational studies that demonstrate the impact that therapy delay may have on disease outcomes,” they said in the email. “In fact, the need for maintenance therapy for CTCL is often debated. Our findings demonstrate the importance of continuing treatment and the use of maintenance therapy in avoiding disease progression in these incurable lymphomas.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective observational design. “Therefore, we cannot establish a definitive causal link between treatment delay and disease progression,” they said. “Our cohort of patients were on various and often multiple therapies, making it hard to extrapolate our data to discern which maintenance therapies were most effective in preventing disease progression.”

In addition, their data only includes patients from March to October 2020, “before the discovery of new variants and the development of COVID-19 vaccines,” they added. “Additional studies would be required to draw conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccines may affect patients with CTCL, including outcomes in the setting of new variants.”

The authors reported having no financial disclosures.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

An early and influential paper on long COVID that appeared in The Lancet has been flagged with an expression of concern while the journal investigates “data errors” brought to light by a reader.

An editorial that accompanied the paper when it was published in January of last year described it as “the first large cohort study with 6-months’ follow-up” of people hospitalized with COVID-19. The article has received plenty of attention since then.

Titled “6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study,” the paper has been cited nearly 1,600 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric finds references to it in multiple documents from the World Health Organization.

According to the expression of concern, dated November 24, a reader found inconsistencies between the data in the article and a later paper describing the same cohort of patients after a year of follow-up. That discovery sparked an investigation that is still ongoing:

• On Jan 8, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study, by Chaolin Huang and colleagues. 1 On Aug 28, 2021, The Lancet published an Article, 1-year outcomes in hospital survivors with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study, by Lixue Huang and colleagues. 2 We received an inquiry from a researcher on data inconsistencies between these two Articles, and we sought an explanation from the corresponding author of the two papers. On Nov 7, 2022, Lancet editors were informed that inconsistencies between the 6-month and the 1-year data were due to “some variables in the dataset used for the 6-month paper were mistakenly disrupted in order”. In view of the extent of these data errors, we now issue an Expression of Concern about the 6-month paper 1 while we investigate further, including further statistical and clinical review of the corrected data. We will update this notice as soon as we have further information.

The corresponding author of both papers, Bin Cao of China’s National Center for Respiratory Medicine and the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to our request for comment.

A profile of Cao published in Lancet Infectious Diseases last March described him as “a leading researcher in pneumonia and influenza” who “has been instrumental in increasing knowledge about COVID-19.” In addition to the follow-up study of hospitalized COVID patients:

• Cao’s seminal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic include the first report of the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, the description of the risk factors for mortality for adult inpatients, and the results of trials testing the use of antiviral drugs, including lopinavir-ritonavir, to treat COVID-19 in China.

We reached out to The Lancet’s press office and Richard Horton, the journal’s editor-in-chief, and received this statement:

• The Lancet Group treats all communications between editors and authors or readers as confidential. Investigations are continuing, and the Expression of Concern will be updated as soon as we have further information to share. More information about our policies is available here: 

This year, The Lancet overtook the New England Journal of Medicine as the medical journal with the highest impact factor, in large part due to the papers it published about COVID-19.

We’ve counted retractions for three of those papers, most notably a paper about the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that claimed to use medical data from a company called Surgisphere. As Retraction Watch readers may remember, the article was retracted after sleuths questioned if the data were real, and the company would not produce it for review.

This article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.